scholarly journals Regional Approach to Biodiversity Information Management and Reporting in Southeast Europe

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azra Velagić-Hajrudinović
Keyword(s):  
Information Management ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Southeast Europe ◽  
Global Biodiversity Information Facility ◽  
Standard Data ◽  
Taxonomic Groups ◽  
Biodiversity Information

Featuring a large variety of ecosystems, abundant freshwater and forest resources, unique extensive karstic systems, and a high level of biodiversity and endemism, Southeast Europe (SEE) plays a crucial role in the conservation of biodiversity in Europe and beyond. In order to conserve and sustainably use these biodiversity assets and valuable natural resources, a regional concerted approach in the field of biodiversity information management and reporting (BIMR) has been strengthened. This has enabled improvement in access, transparency and exchange of biodiversity data and reporting processes among the participating economies. Certain significant and visible progress among SEE economies and stakeholders is due to to the knowledge gained about regional and national BIMR baselines, agreed and elaborated minimum Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and European Union (EU) requirements on BIMR among stakeholders and implemented BIMR tools (e.g., a regionally unified fundamental database for the Information System for Nature Conservation (ISNC), for instance in Montenegro (http://zasticenapodrucja-cg.tk//en), Bosnia and Herzegovina/entity of Republika Srpska (http://e-priroda.rs.ba/en/) and entity of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia (Standard Data Form - SDF application for NATURA 2000) and compiled dataset on five taxonomic groups of endemic taxa using the Darwin Core standard). Therefore, BIMR activities/priorities from the region have become more evident and supported along with ownership of BIMR tools acquired by the partner institutions and recognized at the global level through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).

scholarly journals Spain and Marine Protected Areas: Recent Developments

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 847-855
Author(s):  
Mariano J. Aznar
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Barcelona Convention ◽  
Specially Protected Areas

Abstract Spain has just declared a new marine protected area in the Mediterranean. This follows a protective trend taken by Spanish authorities during the last decades and has permitted Spain to honour its international compromises under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It contributes to a framework of protected areas established under conventional regimes such as OSPAR, RAMSAR or EU Natura 2000. The new area protects a ‘cetacean corridor’ and will be inscribed in the list of Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance under the Barcelona Convention regional framework.

Gaps and challenges of the European network of protected sites in the marine realm

2017 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 190-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios D Mazaris ◽  
Vasiliki Almpanidou ◽  
Sylvaine Giakoumi ◽  
Stelios Katsanevakis
Keyword(s):  
Marine Environment ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Conservation Strategy ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Spatial Design ◽  
Marine Realm ◽  
Marine Surface

AbstractThe Natura 2000 network forms the cornerstone of the biodiversity conservation strategy of the European Union and is the largest coordinated network of protected areas (PAs) in the world. Here, we demonstrated that the network fails to adequately cover the marine environment and meet the conservation target of 10% set by the Convention on Biological Diversity. The relative percentage of marine surface cover varies significantly among member states. Interestingly, the relative cover of protected seascape was significantly lower for member states with larger exclusive economic zones. Our analyses demonstrated that the vast majority (93%) of the Natura 2000 sites that cover marine waters include both a terrestrial and a marine component. As a result, the majority of the protected surfaces is adjacent to the coastline, and decreases offshore; only 20% of Natura marine PAs is at depths >200 m. The lack of systematic planning processes is further reflected by the great variability in the distances among protected sites and the limited number of shared Natura sites among member states. Moreover, <40% of the marine sites have management plans, indicating the absence of active, or limited management in most sites. This work highlights the gaps in coverage and spatial design of the European conservation network in the marine environment, and raises questions on the unevenly treatment of marine vs. terrestrial areas.

scholarly journals Biodiversity Information Services: A (not-so-) little knowledge that acts

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. e25738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arturo Ariño ◽  
Daniel Noesgaard ◽  
Angel Hjarding ◽  
Dmitry Schigel
Keyword(s):  
Critical Mass ◽  
The Body ◽  
Global Biodiversity Information Facility ◽  
Entire List ◽  
Darwin Core ◽  
Biogeographical Regions ◽  
Continuous Presence ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Taxonomic Groups ◽  
Biodiversity Information

Standards set up by Biodiversity Information Standards-Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG), initially developed as a way to share taxonomical data, greatly facilitated the establishment of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) as the largest index to digitally-accessible primary biodiversity information records (PBR) held by many institutions around the world. The level of detail and coverage of the body of standards that later became the Darwin Core terms enabled increasingly precise retrieval of relevant records useful for increased digitally-accessible knowledge (DAK) which, in turn, may have helped to solve ecologically-relevant questions. After more than a decade of data accrual and release, an increasing number of papers and reports are citing GBIF either as a source of data or as a pointer to the original datasets. GBIF has curated a list of over 5,000 citations that were examined for contents, and to which tags were applied describing such contents as additional keywords. The list now provides a window on what users want to accomplish using such DAK. We performed a preliminary word frequency analysis of this literature, starting at titles, which refers to GBIF as a resource. Through a standardization and mapping of terms, we examined how the facility-enabled data seem to have been used by scientists and other practitioners through time: what concepts/issues are pervasive, which taxon groups are mostly addressed, and whether data concentrate around specific geographical or biogeographical regions. We hoped to cast light on which types of ecological problems the community believes are amenable to study through the judicious use of this data commons and found that, indeed, a few themes were distinctly more frequently mentioned than others. Among those, generally-perceived issues such as climate change and its effect on biodiversity at global and regional scales seemed prevalent. The taxonomic groups were also unevenly mentioned, with birds and plants being the most frequently named. However, the entire list of potential subjects that might have used GBIF-enabled data is now quite wide, showing that the availability of well-structured data has spawned a widening spectrum of possible use cases. Among them, some enjoy early and continuous presence (e.g. species, biodiversity, climate) while others have started to show up only later, once a critical mass of data seemed to have been attained (e.g. ecosystems, suitability, endemism). Biodiversity information in the form of standards-compliant DAK may thus already have become a commodity enabling insight into an increasingly more complex and diverse body of science. Paraphrasing Tennyson, more things were wrought by data than TDWG dreamt of.

scholarly journals Regional Policy Paper on the Biodiversity Information Management and Reporting in Southeast Europe

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azra Velagić-Hajrudinović
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Information Management ◽  
Regional Policy ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Southeast Europe ◽  
East Europe ◽  
Advisory Body ◽  
Policy Paper ◽  
South East Europe ◽  
Biodiversity Information

In the region of Southeast Europe (SEE) the obligation to establish and maintain information systems for nature conservation is scarcely mentioned in national legislation and is not adequately covered in legislative documents. Therefore, there is a great need for a more detailed regional policy paper that consists of a set of measures and a template of regulation. A set of measures was proposed and agreed upon among Biodiversity Information Management and Reporting (BIMR)* Regional Platform members and prepared in a way to be feasible, clear, resourceful and adjusted to the national circumstances, thus easier to implement. The regulation tackles all information system aspects in order to improve reporting processes towards the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, https://www.cbd.int/mechanisms) and other relevant conventions (e.g., exchange and provisioning of the data, access and usage rights, technical and functional requirements/standards, compliance with relevant international standards and European Union (EU) directives such as EU INSPIRE Directive (Infrastructure for spatial information in Europe, https://inspire.ec.europa.eu), Birds (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm) and Habitats Directive (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm). Capacities and skills of BIMR Regional Platform partner institutions are utilized while other available policy and strategic documents are used for emphasizing BIMR priorities in BIMR policy paper. Stakeholders have an opportunity to express national data gaps and needs through a questionnaire where BIMR priorities are selected at the regional level and presented in a proposed set of measures and regulation. Consultative meetings of the BIMR Regional Platform are used for drafting and preparing the document in a form to be ready for endorsement. The BIMR policy paper will be delivered to the Biodiversity Taskforce (BD TF https://www.rcc.int/docs/443/biodiversity-task-force-of-south-east-europe--technical-and-advisory-body-of-the-regional-working-group-on-environment), an intergovernmental technical and advisory body of the Regional Working Group on Environment (RWGE), which coordinates regional activities, facilitates the implementation of the SEE 2020 Strategy (https://www.rcc.int/pages/86/south-east-europe-2020-strategy) and creates a framework for more efficient implementation of biodiversity policies in the framework of accession to the EU. As a final outcome, the BD TF will report on the BIMR policy paper to the RWGE for further endorsement. Main result: Cooperation between economies is strengthened and their willingness to implement EU standards and fulfill international obligations is fostered by improving the capacities and skills of partner institutions for an active regional exchange, including learning/knowledge transfer and practices. This regional paper enables amplification of BIMR issues in the national legislation by improving the decision-making processes of stakeholders in their own institutions and reporting progress towards international biodiversity agreements. BIMR Regional Platform is a consultative technical group which represents focal points from the Ministries of Environment, Environmental Protection Agencies and Institutes for Nature Conservation from SEE and Croatia. It facilitates consultant work at the national/regional level, communicates and disseminates information on BIMR activities in respective institutions and other biodiversity relevant sectors and initiatives, verifies and presents BIMR deliverables and mobilizes institutional, scientific and technical networks in support of BIMR activities.

scholarly journals Darwin Core for Agricultural Biodiversity: A metadata extension proposal

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filipi Soares ◽  
Benildes Maculan ◽  
Debora Drucker
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Biological Interactions ◽  
Agricultural Biodiversity ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Standard Format ◽  
Darwin Core ◽  
Metadata Standards ◽  
Biodiversity Information

Agricultural Biodiversity has been defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity as the set of elements of biodiversity that are relevant to agriculture and food production. These elements are arranged into an agro-ecosystem that compasses "the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems" (UNEP 1992). As with any other field in Biology, Agricultural Biodiversity work produces data. In order to publish data in a way it can be efficiently retrieved on web, one must describe it with proper metadata. A metadata element set is a group of statements made about something. These statements have three elements, named subject (thing represented), predicate (space filled up with data) and object (data itself). This representation is called triples. For example, the title is a metadata element. A book is the subject; title is the predicate; and The Chronicles of Narnia is the object. Some metadata standards have been developed to describe biodiversity data, as ABCD Data Schema, Darwin Core (DwC) and Ecological Metadata Language (EML). The DwC is said to be the most used metadata standard to publish data about species occurrence worldwide (Global Biodiversity Information Facility 2019). "Darwin Core is a standard maintained by the Darwin Core maintenance group. It includes a glossary of terms (in other contexts these might be called properties, elements, fields, columns, attributes, or concepts) intended to facilitate the sharing of information about biological diversity by providing identifiers, labels, and definitions. Darwin Core is primarily based on taxa, their occurrence in nature as documented by observations, specimens, samples, and related information" (Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) 2014). Within this thematic context, a master research project is in progress at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in partnership with the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA). It aims to apply the DwC on Brazil’s Agricultural Biodiversity data. A pragmatic analysis of DwC and DwC Extensions demonstrated that important concepts and relations from Agricultural Biodiversity are not represented in DwC elements. For example, DwC does not have significant metadata to describe biological interactions, to convey important information about relations between organisms in an ecological perspective. Pollination is one of the biological interactions relevant to Agricultural Biodiversity, for which we need enhanced metadata. Given these problems, the principles of metadata construction of DwC will be followed in order to develop a metadata extension able to represent data about Agricultural Biodiversity. These principles are the Dublin Core Abstract Model, which present propositions for creating the triples (subject-predicate-object). The standard format of DwC Extensions (see Darwin Core Archive Validator) will be followed to shape the metadata extension. At the end of the research, we expect to present a model of DwC metadata record to publish data about Agricultural Biodiversity in Brazil, including metadata already existent in Simple DwC and the new metadata of Brazil’s Agricultural Biodiversity Metadata Extension. The resulting extension will be useful to represent Agricultural Diversity worldwide.

scholarly journals No one-size-fits-all solution to clean GBIF

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Zizka ◽  
Fernanda Antunes Carvalho ◽  
Alice Calvente ◽  
Mabel Rocio Baez-Lizarazo ◽  
Andressa Cabral ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urban Areas ◽  
Geographic Area ◽  
Strict Sense ◽  
Global Biodiversity Information Facility ◽  
Marine Animals ◽  
Conservation Assessments ◽  
Richness Patterns ◽  
Taxonomic Groups ◽  
Biodiversity Information ◽  
Occurrence Records

ABSTRACTSpecies occurrence records provide the basis for many biodiversity studies. They derive from georeferenced specimens deposited in natural history collections and visual observations, such as those obtained through various mobile applications. Given the rapid increase in availability of such data, the control of quality and accuracy constitutes a particular concern. Automatic filtering is a scalable and reproducible means to identify potentially problematic records and tailor datasets from public databases such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF; www.gbif.org), for biodiversity analyses. However, it is unclear how much data may be lost by filtering, whether the same filters should be applied across all taxonomic groups, and what the effect of filtering is on common downstream analyses. Here, we evaluate the effect of 13 recently proposed filters on the inference of species richness patterns and automated conservation assessments for 18 Neotropical taxa, including terrestrial and marine animals, fungi, and plants downloaded from GBIF. We find that a total of 44.3% of the records are potentially problematic, with large variation across taxonomic groups (25 - 90%). A small fraction of records was identified as erroneous in the strict sense (4.2%), and a much larger proportion as unfit for most downstream analyses (41.7%). Filters of duplicated information, collection year, and basis of record, as well as coordinates in urban areas, or for terrestrial taxa in the sea or marine taxa on land, have the greatest effect. Automated filtering can help in identifying problematic records, but requires customization of which tests and thresholds should be applied to the taxonomic group and geographic area under focus. Our results stress the importance of thorough recording and exploration of the meta-data associated with species records for biodiversity research.

scholarly journals Global patterns in threats to vertebrates by biological invasions

2016 ◽  
Vol 283 (1823) ◽  
pp. 20152454 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Bellard ◽  
P. Genovesi ◽  
J. M. Jeschke
Keyword(s):  
Biological Invasions ◽  
Threatened Species ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Invasive Alien Species ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Major Influence ◽  
Invasive Mammals ◽  
Taxonomic Groups ◽  
Changes Over Time

Biological invasions as drivers of biodiversity loss have recently been challenged. Fundamentally, we must know where species that are threatened by invasive alien species (IAS) live, and the degree to which they are threatened. We report the first study linking 1372 vertebrates threatened by more than 200 IAS from the completely revised Global Invasive Species Database. New maps of the vulnerability of threatened vertebrates to IAS permit assessments of whether IAS have a major influence on biodiversity, and if so, which taxonomic groups are threatened and where they are threatened. We found that centres of IAS-threatened vertebrates are concentrated in the Americas, India, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. The areas in which IAS-threatened species are located do not fully match the current hotspots of invasions, or the current hotspots of threatened species. The relative importance of biological invasions as drivers of biodiversity loss clearly varies across regions and taxa, and changes over time, with mammals from India, Indonesia, Australia and Europe are increasingly being threatened by IAS. The chytrid fungus primarily threatens amphibians, whereas invasive mammals primarily threaten other vertebrates. The differences in IAS threats between regions and taxa can help efficiently target IAS, which is essential for achieving the Strategic Plan 2020 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

scholarly journals BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA IN THE CONTEXT OF REGIONAL AND GLOBAL COOPERATION FOR CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-80
Author(s):  
Melisa Ljuša ◽  
Mehmed Cero ◽  
Zlata Grabovac
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Plenary Session ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Global Network ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Relict Species ◽  
Climate Conditions

UDK: 574:502(497.6) With the geographical position and climate conditions it has, Bosnia and Herzegovinais a countryof unique life forms and biodiversity. The flora, fauna and fungi of Bosnia and Herzegovina are among the most diverse in Europe, and the high level of endemism and relict species provide for the country’s significance at the global biodiversity level (UNCBD, 2019). Since 2002, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), has been following global trends of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Followingthe Convention, among others, six national reports were developed, as well as the Strategy and Action Plan for Protection of Biological Diversity in Bosnia and Herzegovina (NBSAP) by 2020. These documents seek to ensure that protection and sustainable use of biodiversity become inevitable principles when relevant sectoral policies, strategies and legislation at all governmental levels of Bosnia and Herzegovina are being developed. In 2013, the Bosnian-Herzegovina Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) portal for sharing information on biodiversity was established within the global network CBD CHM. As a member country of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bosnia and Herzegovina actively represents and advocates for the interests of Eastern Europe. Bosnia and Herzegovina has made significant contribution to the preparation of a Regional and Sub-Regional Assessment for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Europe and Central Asia, which was adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of IPBES (Medellin, Colombia, March 2018). In the context of regional and global cooperation, Bosnia and Herzegovina significantly contributes  to the organization of the workshop and the preparation of an Eastern European Action Document on Pollinators, Food Security and Rural Development, within BES-Net Trialogue. Bosnia and Herzegovina reaffirmed its commitment to the status of pollinators by accessing to the global Coalition of the Willing on Pollinators at the 6th IPBES Plenary Session.

scholarly journals The Catalogue of Life: Assembling data into a global taxonomic checklist

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Ower ◽  
Yuri Roskov
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Basic Knowledge ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Data Submission ◽  
Standard Data ◽  
Data Formats ◽  
Taxonomic Groups

Producing a global taxonomic checklist of all species is essential for indexing biodiversity data, and for providing the basic knowledge needed to study, manage, and conserve biological diversity. The Catalogue of Life (CoL) aims to provide a global taxonomic checklist of all species, and includes 1.9 million species names in the 2019 annual edition. The task of assembling data into CoL is complex and requires reformatting data, quality assurance testing, and collaborating with data providers to resolve detected taxonomic conflicts. Global Species Databases (GSDs) are submitted in a wide variety of data formats to CoL by hundreds of taxonomic experts and institutions. Submitted data are reformatted to a standard data submission format: CoL Standard Dataset (ACEF), DarwinCore, or CoLDP. A series of standardized data integrity checks are run to detect and resolve frequently occurring data quality problems including character encoding corruption, non-Latin characters in scientific names, missing parents, duplicated and homonymic names within the GSD and among other GSDs, split taxonomic groups that have been assigned to multiple parent taxa, and other issues. The process and challenges of assembling data into the Catalogue of Life, and future directions of the project in migrating to CoL+ infrastructure will be discussed.

scholarly journals Prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use of wild species inferred from the IUCN Red List

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie M.E. Marsh ◽  
Michael Hoffmann ◽  
Neil D. Burgess ◽  
Thomas M. Brooks ◽  
Daniel W.S. Challender ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wild Species ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Extinction Risk ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Iucn Red List ◽  
Red List ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Human Consumption ◽  
Management Actions ◽  
Taxonomic Groups

AbstractUnsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. Here, we infer current prevalence of unsustainable and sustainable biological resource use among species groups; research to date has focused on the former with little consideration of the latter. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups comprehensively assessed on the IUCN Red List. Our results demonstrate the broad taxonomic prevalence of use, with 40% of species (10,098 of 25,009 from 10 taxonomic groups with adequate data) documented as being used. The main purposes of use are pets, display animals and horticulture, and human consumption. Use is often biologically unsustainable: intentional use is currently considered to be contributing to elevated extinction risk for more than one quarter of all threatened or Near Threatened (NT) species (2,752 – 2,848 of 9,753 species). Of the species used and traded, intentional use threatens 16% (1,597 – 1,631 of 10,098 species). However, 36% of species that are used (3,651 of 10,098 species) have either stable or improving population trends and do not have biological use documented as a threat, including 172 threatened or NT species. It is not yet inferable whether use of the remaining 48% of species is sustainable; we make suggestions for improving use-related Red List data to elucidate this. Around a third of species that have use documented as a threat are not currently receiving any species management actions that directly address this threat. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, are important for informing international policymaking, including IPBES, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.Article impact statementUse is likely unsustainable for 16%, likely sustainable for 36%, and undetermined for 48% of ~10,000 wild species analyzed on the Red List.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document